[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Mike Rivers writes:
Come to St. Louis sometime, and I'll introduce you to Steve Schenkel,
who does exactly that -- wonderfully. I've never figured out how.

OK, I guess that was a bad example, or an example of the
fact that if you know what you want, you can probably do it with
the tools you have at hand. I've recorded a lot of
things with mics that cost less than $500, too.

As have most of us, but sometimes getting something close to usable might not have been the most fun. Getting something
worth listening to with less than the tools you want, but
the tools you got is the mark of experience often, but
sometimes just comes down to pure and simple luck. IT's
always easier with the tools you wish you had grin.
When the customer's money is on the line along with your rep though, getting the tools you feel you want to do the
project justice is always a good investment however grin.
IF nothing else there's always rentals.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/13/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Webb wrote:

As have most of us, but sometimes getting something close to usable might not have been the most fun. Getting something
worth listening to with less than the tools you want, but
the tools you got is the mark of experience often, but
sometimes just comes down to pure and simple luck.

Maybe I'm just easier to satisfy than you guys, but I've
never had the experience where, when setting up mics, I've
felt that I'm working with second best. Nor do I feel like
I'm always working with the best. I'm just recording, and it
works. Or if it doesn't work, it's not the mic that's the
problem, it's what's going into the mic.

A $9,000 mic isn't going to make a dull performance great,
but at least we have a $200 plug-in that will put it in tune.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/13/2010 7:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that
the application of some science to the effort can't hurt.
Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific
instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered
building of an instrument, using any modern or classical
material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of
these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they
are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem
from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the
sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical
way.

Guitars, at least acoustic guitars, are traditionally made
from wood. No two pieces of wood are alike, so it's
impossible to make two guitars that sound alike. There are
certain characteristics that you can retain over a design,
which are a function of the things you can control - the
size and position of the sound hole, the depth of the body,
the placement of the braces, the length of the strings. I
don't think that we know enough about wood yet to be able to
make a substitute that sounds like a wood guitar, at least
I've never heard one that does.

A microphone is a different story. It's possible to make a
bunch of microphones that all sound alike, but it's not
trivial because there's precision machining involved, with,
so said Stephen Paul, one of the people who spent many years
studying what makes mics sound the way they do, greater
precision than can be achieved with present NC machines. So
either you take a little variation or you throw away a lot
of mics that don't sound like your gold standard.

I suppose you could do the same with guitars, but it
wouldn't be as economical as in your dream.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

anahata wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 03:21:28 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:

I am playing tunes from the 30's - 50's in a senior
citizens dance band, and playing around in my own living room with a
bunch of friends.

So there are some applications that can benefit from a $9000 mic, but
yours certainly isn't one of them.

That's for sure. I would have many other ways to spend 9 big ones. I think I
would have Monette build me a four valve flugelhorn.....:^)

Monette rocks

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:

On 12/13/2010 7:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that
the application of some science to the effort can't hurt.
Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific
instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered
building of an instrument, using any modern or classical
material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of
these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they
are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem
from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the
sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical
way.

Guitars, at least acoustic guitars, are traditionally made
from wood. No two pieces of wood are alike, so it's
impossible to make two guitars that sound alike. There are
certain characteristics that you can retain over a design,
which are a function of the things you can control - the
size and position of the sound hole, the depth of the body,
the placement of the braces, the length of the strings. I
don't think that we know enough about wood yet to be able to
make a substitute that sounds like a wood guitar, at least
I've never heard one that does.

+1

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[PStamler]

On Dec 13, 3:01*pm, wrote:
On 2010-12-13 said:
* * You
* * wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz.
* *Come to St. Louis sometime, and I'll introduce you to Steve
* *Schenkel, who does exactly that -- wonderfully. I've never figured
* *out how.

could he have one of those rare teles I saw back in the
'80's that had humbuckers? *A buddy of mine bought one in a
music store in Des MOines, Ia. around 1985-86 like that. *I
used to borrow it when I"d play two electric guitars with a
buddy of mine, because I could get that Gibson humbucker
sound without the weight. *I"d also borrow it for recording
sessions, because he'd play some parts on the humbucker
tele, others on his standard tele.

I don't think so; last time I saw him (a few years ago), he was
playing what *looked* like a standard Tele. No telling, of course, how
he might have modded it, but the pickups definitely weren't the Gibson-
style humbuckers.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

On Dec 13, 6:49*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that the application
of some science to the effort can't hurt. Can't you envision the study, with
modern scientific instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered building of an
instrument, using any modern or classical material available, that can
reproduce any and/or all of these sounds more cheaply or easily or both,
than how they are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem from a purely
scientific respective by first identifying the sound you want, and then
producing it in the most economical way. And, in any case, why would this be
wrong? I mean, if someone wants to do it, well, why not? Sure, you may not
want to play it when its done. It might not have all that pretty rosewood on
the back, or that ebony fretboard that you are so fond of caressing with
your left hand. But it might sound just like a $5000 guitar and only cost
$1000, and that's something!

You're way too late. People at the Martin, Taylor and Larrivee
companies have been doing it for years. What they've found is that,
through the use of those scientific techniques, they can make cheaper
guitars (for $300-700 or so) that are a good deal better than the
comparably cheap guitars of a couple of decades ago. Heck, even the
$150 guitars are better than the comparable ones of decades ago.

What they've also found, though, is that there really isn't a way to
make a cheaper version of a $2000 guitar that doesn't sound, well,
cheaper. There are ways to economize -- computer-controlled drilling
of headstocks, for example -- that cut production costs a bit. But
building guitars the old way still makes the best guitars -- and
unfortunately they're also the more expensive guitars. Not $9000,
maybe, but I said there's a threshold at around $1500, below which you
simply don't get a really good-sounding, expressive full-range guitar.
Going up from that point, you get a bit of refinement at the
$2000-2500 point (which not eveybody wants), and perhaps a slightly
better feel on the neck (again arguable; everyone has different hands)
in guitars like the Collings, which hew pretty closely to earlier
Martin designs. Beyond that, you're paying for beautiful inlays and
the like. Which is fine for the folks that like that, but it doesn't
add anything to the sound of the instrument.

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers writes:
On 2010-12-13 said:
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
On 12/13/2010 10:20 PM, Richard Webb wrote:
g As have most of us, but sometimes getting something close to
usable might not have been the most fun. Getting something
worth listening to with less than the tools you want, but
the tools you got is the mark of experience often, but
sometimes just comes down to pure and simple luck.
Maybe I'm just easier to satisfy than you guys, but I've
never had the experience where, when setting up mics, I've
felt that I'm working with second best. Nor do I feel like
I'm always working with the best. I'm just recording, and it
works. Or if it doesn't work, it's not the mic that's the
problem, it's what's going into the mic.
Usually this is true, which means I either have to move the
mic a bit to get a little more/less of what's going into it
that I don't like.

A $9,000 mic isn't going to make a dull performance great,
but at least we have a $200 plug-in that will put it in tune.
YEah I know, but back in the day we didn't even have that,
and I still don't bother with the $200 plug-in to put it in
tune. That's somebody else's problem, that's why I do the
sort of stuff I do anymore. IF you can't sign/play in tune
I have to listen to you for that one performance, then
you're somebody else's problem.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/14/2010 9:35 AM, wrote:

Or if it doesn't work, it's not the mic that's the
problem, it's what's going into the mic.

Usually this is true, which means I either have to move the
mic a bit to get a little more/less of what's going into it
that I don't like.

Uh . . . that wasn't exactly what I had in mind. Maybe move
the singer a couple of blocks away from the mic and move a
better singer into position.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:42:49 -0500, rakmanenuff wrote
(in article
):

On Dec 13, 12:38*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:

You wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz.

Ted Greene used a Tele to play mellow jazz

You can on mine. '72 Thinline w/humbuckers

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Bill Graham]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that
the application of some science to the effort can't hurt.
Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific
instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered
building of an instrument, using any modern or classical
material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of
these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they
are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem
from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the
sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical
way.

Guitars, at least acoustic guitars, are traditionally made
from wood. No two pieces of wood are alike, so it's
impossible to make two guitars that sound alike. There are
certain characteristics that you can retain over a design,
which are a function of the things you can control - the
size and position of the sound hole, the depth of the body,
the placement of the braces, the length of the strings. I
don't think that we know enough about wood yet to be able to
make a substitute that sounds like a wood guitar, at least
I've never heard one that does.

A microphone is a different story. It's possible to make a
bunch of microphones that all sound alike, but it's not
trivial because there's precision machining involved, with,
so said Stephen Paul, one of the people who spent many years
studying what makes mics sound the way they do, greater
precision than can be achieved with present NC machines. So
either you take a little variation or you throw away a lot
of mics that don't sound like your gold standard.

I suppose you could do the same with guitars, but it
wouldn't be as economical as in your dream.

Oh, I have no idea how economical it may turn out to be. I just inherently
believe that most all such things are possible when approached from a
scientific perspective. I believe that the density and other material
characteristics of the various woods could be ascertained, and plastics
substituted, and guitars built for whatever sound you wanted turned out by
picking the right materials and construction techniques. Whether anyone
would bother is another story. Someday, perhaps, when we run out of exotic
woods, such a thing may become mandatory.

[Neil Gould]

Bill Graham wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that
the application of some science to the effort can't hurt.
Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific
instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered
building of an instrument, using any modern or classical
material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of
these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they
are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem
from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the
sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical
way.

Guitars, at least acoustic guitars, are traditionally made
from wood. No two pieces of wood are alike, so it's
impossible to make two guitars that sound alike. There are
certain characteristics that you can retain over a design,
which are a function of the things you can control - the
size and position of the sound hole, the depth of the body,
the placement of the braces, the length of the strings. I
don't think that we know enough about wood yet to be able to
make a substitute that sounds like a wood guitar, at least
I've never heard one that does.

A microphone is a different story. It's possible to make a
bunch of microphones that all sound alike, but it's not
trivial because there's precision machining involved, with,
so said Stephen Paul, one of the people who spent many years
studying what makes mics sound the way they do, greater
precision than can be achieved with present NC machines. So
either you take a little variation or you throw away a lot
of mics that don't sound like your gold standard.

I suppose you could do the same with guitars, but it
wouldn't be as economical as in your dream.

Oh, I have no idea how economical it may turn out to be. I just
inherently believe that most all such things are possible when
approached from a scientific perspective. I believe that the density
and other material characteristics of the various woods could be
ascertained, and plastics substituted, and guitars built for whatever
sound you wanted turned out by picking the right materials and
construction techniques. Whether anyone would bother is another
story. Someday, perhaps, when we run out of exotic woods, such a
thing may become mandatory.

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is rather
puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition. A musical
instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the number of variables
accounting for its sound can not be adequately controlled. OTOH, the
intention behind making microphones is that all mics of a certain model will
have the same sound, and the failure to accomplish this is due to mechanical
and manufacturing limitations. In the end, though, your idea that one can
completely reproduce the acoustic qualities of one material and complex
structure with some dissimilar material and structure falls apart rather
quickly, if you really apply some scientific thought to the subject.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/15/2010 6:52 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is rather
puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition. A musical
instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the number of variables
accounting for its sound can not be adequately controlled.

Apparently Bill doesn't think this is necessary, that
guitars can be designed for a purpose using engineered
materials, and make them all the same.

OTOH, the
intention behind making microphones is that all mics of a certain model will
have the same sound, and the failure to accomplish this is due to mechanical
and manufacturing limitations.

Yup. But if you COULD make guitars like you CAN (sort of)
make microphones, then Bill would be a happy boy, at least
if those engineered guitars only cost a few hundred bucks.
If they cost $10,000, however, I think he might be a little
disappointed with the state of technology.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/15/2010 6:52 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is
rather puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition.
A musical instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the
number of variables accounting for its sound can not be adequately
controlled.

Apparently Bill doesn't think this is necessary, that
guitars can be designed for a purpose using engineered
materials, and make them all the same.

I think this was one of Leo Fender's original intentions, and to an
impressive extent, he succeeded. The differences between the same model
guitar are pretty subtle, but that isn't to say the differences don't exist.
When I was touring and performing, Fenders were a good choice because they
were "close enough" that a substitution didn't affect a performance.

OTOH, the
intention behind making microphones is that all mics of a certain
model will have the same sound, and the failure to accomplish this
is due to mechanical and manufacturing limitations.

Yup. But if you COULD make guitars like you CAN (sort of)
make microphones, then Bill would be a happy boy, at least
if those engineered guitars only cost a few hundred bucks.
If they cost $10,000, however, I think he might be a little
disappointed with the state of technology.

I suspect that, as for microphones, the cost would be correlative with the
expected level of similarity between individual samples.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
PStamler wrote:

On Dec 13, 6:49*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that the application
of some science to the effort can't hurt. Can't you envision the study, with
modern scientific instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered building of an
instrument, using any modern or classical material available, that can
reproduce any and/or all of these sounds more cheaply or easily or both,
than how they are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem from a purely
scientific respective by first identifying the sound you want, and then
producing it in the most economical way. And, in any case, why would this be
wrong? I mean, if someone wants to do it, well, why not? Sure, you may not
want to play it when its done. It might not have all that pretty rosewood on
the back, or that ebony fretboard that you are so fond of caressing with
your left hand. But it might sound just like a $5000 guitar and only cost
$1000, and that's something!

You're way too late. People at the Martin, Taylor and Larrivee
companies have been doing it for years. What they've found is that,
through the use of those scientific techniques, they can make cheaper
guitars (for $300-700 or so) that are a good deal better than the
comparably cheap guitars of a couple of decades ago. Heck, even the
$150 guitars are better than the comparable ones of decades ago.

What they've also found, though, is that there really isn't a way to
make a cheaper version of a $2000 guitar that doesn't sound, well,
cheaper. There are ways to economize -- computer-controlled drilling
of headstocks, for example -- that cut production costs a bit. But
building guitars the old way still makes the best guitars -- and
unfortunately they're also the more expensive guitars. Not $9000,
maybe, but I said there's a threshold at around $1500, below which you
simply don't get a really good-sounding, expressive full-range guitar.
Going up from that point, you get a bit of refinement at the
$2000-2500 point (which not eveybody wants), and perhaps a slightly
better feel on the neck (again arguable; everyone has different hands)
in guitars like the Collings, which hew pretty closely to earlier
Martin designs. Beyond that, you're paying for beautiful inlays and
the like. Which is fine for the folks that like that, but it doesn't
add anything to the sound of the instrument.

Peace,
Paul

The guitars that I tend to like the most are handmade one at a time and
are, predictably, expensive. I don't go for beautiful inlays, etc. at
all. People who play as I play tend to stay away from that. But to get
the sound that is close to the model in my head requires woods that are
expensive, and tons of working and tweeking by the builder. The cost is
worth it to me because it is the only way I can get the sound that I
want. It's a very subtle thing. I have very few, but very excellent
instruments. I wish that they were less expensive, but they are not.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[[email protected]]

MIke Rivers wrote:
Or if it doesn't work, it's not the mic that's the
problem, it's what's going into the mic.
Usually this is true, which means I either have to move the
mic a bit to get a little more/less of what's going into it
that I don't like.
Uh . . . that wasn't exactly what I had in mind. Maybe move
the singer a couple of blocks away from the mic and move a
better singer into position.

THat's oftentimes the only method that works, and is better
than autotune. That's why I do on site stuff though, I hate
autotune, and if I"ve got to deal with a singer who can't, I
just have to deal for that performance, then he/she is
somebody else's problem.

Which is also why I don't do karaoke, at all.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 6:17*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Cyberserf wrote:
On Dec 10, 9:55 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Cyberserf wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:28 am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Bill Graham" wrote:

I think that, like guitars, you
don't gain much above $500.

Man, do I disagree with that (the guitar part).

Bill knows less about guitars than he does about mics, and in a
professional audio forum context, he don't know **** about mics.

I played the classical guitar for several years....I know that
Andre Segovia had several 18th century harpsichords smashed up to
get the wood for his guitar, but I bet he never took a double
blind test either. I have been working with musicians for a long
time now, and I know the way they think. They are so
impressionable that they will deny physics to cling to their
beliefs. Ask a trumpet player about, "projection" sometime. And
about "cryogenic treatment" also. (if you want to get a good laugh)

How much would you pay for a Sergovia? Only $500? You're saying
that a Martin HD28 (above $500) is not much better than a Yamaha
F310 (below $500)...might you see where that might stretch the
credulity of anyone who knows anything about guitars?

In my neck of the woods $500 is where quality STARTS in guitars...I
have worked on and played literally thousands of guitars in all
sorts of price ranges over 30 years as a stringed instrument
technician...there are very few sub $500 guitars built today that I
would recommend to anyone...Instruments below $500 get you laminated
woods (tops/back and sides), inferior components, bad designs and
sloppy build quality...you don't even have to play them to feel how
precarious they are. Perhaps you meant to write $5000...in which
case I would still disagree, though much less vehemently.

I have also worked with a number of musicians...all have been very
well informed and passionate about their sound...rather than
impressionable, I would describe them as bull-headed and driven.
Funny how perceptions can be so divergent.

-CS

$500 is where quality starts, but I am speaking of where good sound
starts. Can you really tell the difference in sound of a $500 guitar
over a $5000 one? I mean in a really good double blind test, where
someone else was playing the music behind a curtain? I am a musician
myself. I love good quality instruments. If I had the money, I would
probably buy myself a horn that cost over $5000. But, I also know
that it probably would really not sound any better than several I
have that cost under $1000 when I bought them several years ago.
IOW, I am just as subseptable to the old placebo effect as is anyone
else. The only difference is, I know about the effect, and many
musicians do not. I love good guitars too. My Martin is a good
example. It only cost me a couple of hundred dollars when I bought
it back in the 70's. Today, it is worth several thousand dollars.
But it is still the same guitar! And, it doesn't sound any better
than it did when I first bought it! But when my guitar playing
friends come over to my place and play it, they say, Oh, my! Does
this guitar sound good! And, it really does sound good. But in my
heart, I know that there are $500 instruments on the market that
would sound just as good. And, as audio engineering advances, there
are factories that could produce better sounding guitars using
modern plastics and carefully engineered shapes, coupled with good
miking and fancy digital effects that C.F.Martin never thought
possible. IOW, we are fast entering a whole different age in
instrument design, and like with film cameras, we will never be able
to look back.

Bill,

You may have a point about the future direction of instruments, though
I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave
me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the
"sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are
easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger
variety of artists. Keep in mind, your $200 Martin (whatever model)
would be sold new today for $1,200+...well above the $500 mark
anyway...you are being offered more due to its vintage status (that's
the hype)...it is the same guitar, but $500 today does not buy you
what it did yesterday. As I said...had you put the bar higher (say at
3K), I would have had very little issue with the statement, when they
all play and sound good, they all play and sound good. My point is
simply that many sub-$500 instruments today verge on the
unplayable...and yes, in many cases, you can hear the difference, but
in all cases, as a player, you can feel them.

Regards, CS

OK. I'll go to $3000. After all, this is 2010. *Money is getting more and
more worthless all the time. (and my conservative friends say, "You ain't
seen nothin' yet") So make my first figure $3000, and not $500. But I claim
that paying more than that for a guitar is wasting your money on brand
names, fancy inlay work around the sound hole, gold plated tuning pegs,
exotic hardwoods, etc. You can probably pay $9000 for a guitar, but you
won't get 3X better sound than you get for $3000. I know that I can pay
$9000 for a flugelhorn, but ZI won't get 6X better sound from it than I can
get from my $1500 Getzen. Which doesn't mean that I wouldn't buy one if I
had the money. I am just as subseptable to the placebo effect as anyone
else.

Sold!

Stay well, CS

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Dec 13, 7:38*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/12/2010 3:20 PM, Cyberserf wrote:

I've played Ovations and other carbon composite guitars...they leave
me cold. The point about quality is, as you know, a good bit of the
"sound" comes from the player...and good quality instruments are
easier to play, thus, they sound better when played by a larger
variety of artists.

You can no longer generalize the sound of a guitar, and
that's why there are so many "natural" guitar sounds. You
wouldn't use a fine classical guitar to play rockabilly. You
wouldn't use a Telecaster to play mellow jazz. You wouldn't
use an Ovation to play in a back porch old time string band.
And, apropos of this discussion, you can't turn an Ovation
into Martin D-28 by choosing the right mic.

I really get annoyed when I hear a solo or near-solo
singer/songwriter where that buzzy no midrange plugged-in
acoustic guitar is the up front instrument. I wonder WHY IN
THE HECK IS HE PLAYING THAT CRUMMY SOUNDING GUITAR!!!????
Yes, that same guitar strummed in the right way fits right
in with a certain kind of band, giving the IMPRESSION that
someone is playing an acoustic guitar but that it doesn't
distract the listener. And, yes, that guitar will sound
about the same regardless of what mic is put on it, if it's
not simply plugged in with no mic.

It's not just the guitar and the mic any more, it's the
music and the production.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and
interesting audio stuff

I wholeheartedly agree...and I would add the "player" to your mix of
musical necessities ;-)

Regards, CS

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 1:17*am, PStamler wrote:
On Dec 13, 6:49*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that the application
of some science to the effort can't hurt. Can't you envision the study, with
modern scientific instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered building of an
instrument, using any modern or classical material available, that can
reproduce any and/or all of these sounds more cheaply or easily or both,
than how they are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem from a purely
scientific respective by first identifying the sound you want, and then
producing it in the most economical way. And, in any case, why would this be
wrong? I mean, if someone wants to do it, well, why not? Sure, you may not
want to play it when its done. It might not have all that pretty rosewood on
the back, or that ebony fretboard that you are so fond of caressing with
your left hand. But it might sound just like a $5000 guitar and only cost
$1000, and that's something!

You're way too late. People at the Martin, Taylor and Larrivee
companies have been doing it for years. What they've found is that,
through the use of those scientific techniques, they can make cheaper
guitars (for $300-700 or so) that are a good deal better than the
comparably cheap guitars of a couple of decades ago. Heck, even the
$150 guitars are better than the comparable ones of decades ago.

What they've also found, though, is that there really isn't a way to
make a cheaper version of a $2000 guitar that doesn't sound, well,
cheaper. There are ways to economize -- computer-controlled drilling
of headstocks, for example -- that cut production costs a bit. But
building guitars the old way still makes the best guitars -- and
unfortunately they're also the more expensive guitars. Not $9000,
maybe, but I said there's a threshold at around $1500, below which you
simply don't get a really good-sounding, expressive full-range guitar.
Going up from that point, you get a bit of refinement at the
$2000-2500 point (which not eveybody wants), and perhaps a slightly
better feel on the neck (again arguable; everyone has different hands)
in guitars like the Collings, which hew pretty closely to earlier
Martin designs. Beyond that, you're paying for beautiful inlays and
the like. Which is fine for the folks that like that, but it doesn't
add anything to the sound of the instrument.

Peace,
Paul

It is true that CNC technology has advanced the construction of
guitars...but Larrivee, Taylor and Martin do not sell for $300-$700 in
my neck of the woods (Canada)...they are most emphatically in the 1K+
club (and well worth the money IMHO). Again, IMHO, there are many
things that differentiate a mediocre guitar from a good one...wood
quality and design choices are central to the equation, material
quality (component and assembly) is critical (bad parts = bad whole,
bad glue = bad joint) and the build quality is essential to the end
results (fit and finish which CNC makes things more predictable, but
quality assurance stills needs to stay on its toes) As for the $150
guitars...go to Cosco or Wal-Mart or Best Buy or the Source...I dare
you to even tune one up...can't be done...trust me...$150 is better
spent on the 2nd hand "used guitar market".

-CS

[Bill Graham]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/14/2010 9:35 AM, wrote:

Or if it doesn't work, it's not the mic that's the
problem, it's what's going into the mic.

Usually this is true, which means I either have to move the
mic a bit to get a little more/less of what's going into it
that I don't like.

Uh . . . that wasn't exactly what I had in mind. Maybe move
the singer a couple of blocks away from the mic and move a
better singer into position.

Speaking of singers, how about these three?

http://www.wimp.com/threetenors

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:
Speaking of singers, how about these three?

http://www.wimp.com/threetenors

The orchestral sound on that is awful, the spots on the horns are really
annoying. The strings sound farther away than the horns.

Notice that the singers all sound very thin for a bel canto singer... so
much of the actual sound character comes from the chest and they have only
the close mike on the mouth. They would do much better with the mike pulled
back (or with a chest mike like Domingo sometimes uses).

Also the third singer is clipping the damn wireless system because the
gains weren't set right.

RAI usually does a better job than this.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bill Graham]

Neil Gould wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that
the application of some science to the effort can't hurt.
Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific
instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered
building of an instrument, using any modern or classical
material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of
these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they
are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem
from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the
sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical
way.

Guitars, at least acoustic guitars, are traditionally made
from wood. No two pieces of wood are alike, so it's
impossible to make two guitars that sound alike. There are
certain characteristics that you can retain over a design,
which are a function of the things you can control - the
size and position of the sound hole, the depth of the body,
the placement of the braces, the length of the strings. I
don't think that we know enough about wood yet to be able to
make a substitute that sounds like a wood guitar, at least
I've never heard one that does.

A microphone is a different story. It's possible to make a
bunch of microphones that all sound alike, but it's not
trivial because there's precision machining involved, with,
so said Stephen Paul, one of the people who spent many years
studying what makes mics sound the way they do, greater
precision than can be achieved with present NC machines. So
either you take a little variation or you throw away a lot
of mics that don't sound like your gold standard.

I suppose you could do the same with guitars, but it
wouldn't be as economical as in your dream.

Oh, I have no idea how economical it may turn out to be. I just
inherently believe that most all such things are possible when
approached from a scientific perspective. I believe that the density
and other material characteristics of the various woods could be
ascertained, and plastics substituted, and guitars built for whatever
sound you wanted turned out by picking the right materials and
construction techniques. Whether anyone would bother is another
story. Someday, perhaps, when we run out of exotic woods, such a
thing may become mandatory.

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is
rather puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition.
A musical instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the
number of variables accounting for its sound can not be adequately
controlled. OTOH, the intention behind making microphones is that all
mics of a certain model will have the same sound, and the failure to
accomplish this is due to mechanical and manufacturing limitations.
In the end, though, your idea that one can completely reproduce the
acoustic qualities of one material and complex structure with some
dissimilar material and structure falls apart rather quickly, if you
really apply some scientific thought to the subject.

Well actually, it isn't the structure of the woods that I would be
interested in, but the sound that the guitar makes, which you say is because
of the structure of the wood, but I am not so sure. I am interested in this
because the same controversy becomes apparent when a bunch of trumpet
players start talking about the different materials you can make a horn out
of, and how they affect the sound. Why would a copper bell on a trumpet
(instead of brass) make for any difference in the sound? I don't believe it
does, but there are trumpet players who swear by it. To me, the placebo
effect jumps to the forefront in discussions like this. I wonder how much
placebo effect makes the sound of a rosewood buitar different from that of a
mahogany one.....

[Bill Graham]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/15/2010 6:52 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is
rather puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition.
A musical instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the
number of variables accounting for its sound can not be adequately
controlled.

Apparently Bill doesn't think this is necessary, that
guitars can be designed for a purpose using engineered
materials, and make them all the same.

OTOH, the
intention behind making microphones is that all mics of a certain
model will have the same sound, and the failure to accomplish this
is due to mechanical and manufacturing limitations.

Yup. But if you COULD make guitars like you CAN (sort of)
make microphones, then Bill would be a happy boy, at least
if those engineered guitars only cost a few hundred bucks.
If they cost $10,000, however, I think he might be a little
disappointed with the state of technology.

Actually, I don't care much about the cost. I am just interested because I
inherently believe that science can solve all problems, so I think a guitar
made out of carbon fibre, or metal, or plastic, or some other material
besides wood could be made to sound the same as a wood one. I don't believe
in magic, IOW. Identify the sound you want, and let the engineers build it.

[Bill Graham]

Jenn wrote:
In article
,
PStamler wrote:

On Dec 13, 6:49 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that the
application of some science to the effort can't hurt. Can't you
envision the study, with modern scientific instruments of the
sounds that eminate from the various guitars that exist in the
world today, and the engineered building of an instrument, using
any modern or classical material available, that can reproduce any
and/or all of these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how
they are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem from a
purely scientific respective by first identifying the sound you
want, and then producing it in the most economical way. And, in any
case, why would this be wrong? I mean, if someone wants to do it,
well, why not? Sure, you may not want to play it when its done. It
might not have all that pretty rosewood on the back, or that ebony
fretboard that you are so fond of caressing with your left hand.
But it might sound just like a $5000 guitar and only cost $1000,
and that's something!

You're way too late. People at the Martin, Taylor and Larrivee
companies have been doing it for years. What they've found is that,
through the use of those scientific techniques, they can make cheaper
guitars (for $300-700 or so) that are a good deal better than the
comparably cheap guitars of a couple of decades ago. Heck, even the
$150 guitars are better than the comparable ones of decades ago.

What they've also found, though, is that there really isn't a way to
make a cheaper version of a $2000 guitar that doesn't sound, well,
cheaper. There are ways to economize -- computer-controlled drilling
of headstocks, for example -- that cut production costs a bit. But
building guitars the old way still makes the best guitars -- and
unfortunately they're also the more expensive guitars. Not $9000,
maybe, but I said there's a threshold at around $1500, below which
you simply don't get a really good-sounding, expressive full-range
guitar. Going up from that point, you get a bit of refinement at the
$2000-2500 point (which not eveybody wants), and perhaps a slightly
better feel on the neck (again arguable; everyone has different
hands) in guitars like the Collings, which hew pretty closely to
earlier Martin designs. Beyond that, you're paying for beautiful
inlays and the like. Which is fine for the folks that like that, but
it doesn't add anything to the sound of the instrument.

Peace,
Paul

The guitars that I tend to like the most are handmade one at a time
and are, predictably, expensive. I don't go for beautiful inlays,
etc. at all. People who play as I play tend to stay away from that.
But to get the sound that is close to the model in my head requires
woods that are expensive, and tons of working and tweeking by the
builder. The cost is worth it to me because it is the only way I can
get the sound that I want. It's a very subtle thing. I have very
few, but very excellent instruments. I wish that they were less
expensive, but they are not.

I don't know how a guitar could be "tweeked" for better sound after it has
been built. I am still suspecting that the price is affecting your (and
others) perception of the sound. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that
you don't know what you are doing, or that you have a bad ear. I am just
saying that the placebo effect is so strong that it cures diseases, and
sells $10,000 instruments to people like me, and so I know that it can do
the same for others too. Most people don't realize what a strong effect it
is, or how much it is changing the sound you perceive when you are playing.

[Neil Gould]

Bill Graham wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that
the application of some science to the effort can't hurt.
Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific
instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered
building of an instrument, using any modern or classical
material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of
these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they
are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem
from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the
sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical
way.

Guitars, at least acoustic guitars, are traditionally made
from wood. No two pieces of wood are alike, so it's
impossible to make two guitars that sound alike. There are
certain characteristics that you can retain over a design,
which are a function of the things you can control - the
size and position of the sound hole, the depth of the body,
the placement of the braces, the length of the strings. I
don't think that we know enough about wood yet to be able to
make a substitute that sounds like a wood guitar, at least
I've never heard one that does.

A microphone is a different story. It's possible to make a
bunch of microphones that all sound alike, but it's not
trivial because there's precision machining involved, with,
so said Stephen Paul, one of the people who spent many years
studying what makes mics sound the way they do, greater
precision than can be achieved with present NC machines. So
either you take a little variation or you throw away a lot
of mics that don't sound like your gold standard.

I suppose you could do the same with guitars, but it
wouldn't be as economical as in your dream.

Oh, I have no idea how economical it may turn out to be. I just
inherently believe that most all such things are possible when
approached from a scientific perspective. I believe that the density
and other material characteristics of the various woods could be
ascertained, and plastics substituted, and guitars built for
whatever sound you wanted turned out by picking the right materials
and construction techniques. Whether anyone would bother is another
story. Someday, perhaps, when we run out of exotic woods, such a
thing may become mandatory.

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is
rather puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition.
A musical instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the
number of variables accounting for its sound can not be adequately
controlled. OTOH, the intention behind making microphones is that all
mics of a certain model will have the same sound, and the failure to
accomplish this is due to mechanical and manufacturing limitations.
In the end, though, your idea that one can completely reproduce the
acoustic qualities of one material and complex structure with some
dissimilar material and structure falls apart rather quickly, if you
really apply some scientific thought to the subject.

Well actually, it isn't the structure of the woods that I would be
interested in, but the sound that the guitar makes, which you say is
because of the structure of the wood, but I am not so sure. I am
interested in this because the same controversy becomes apparent when
a bunch of trumpet players start talking about the different
materials you can make a horn out of, and how they affect the sound.
Why would a copper bell on a trumpet (instead of brass) make for any
difference in the sound? I don't believe it does, but there are
trumpet players who swear by it. To me, the placebo effect jumps to
the forefront in discussions like this. I wonder how much placebo
effect makes the sound of a rosewood buitar different from that of a
mahogany one.....

I believe it is important to be accurate in such a discussion, and to that
end, I've discussed two aspects of the guitar; the materials, (e.g. the
woods, glue, finishing, etc.), and the structure, such as shape, bracing,
string terminations, etc. These aspects significantly affect the sound of a
guitar, but there are other variables that I have not talked about, such as
construction techniques, environmental conditions, and so forth that also
impact the final result. My point is that the interaction of these aspects
result in a factorial number of possible characteristic sound variations for
an acoustic guitar model.

I am not as familiar with musical instrument horn design, but I do know
about material qualities in general. So, the impact of a copper bell vs.
brass depends in part on how the resonance of the bell might affect the
instrument's sound (given the same bell shape). The resonance, density, and
rigidity of the bell materials will have some impact on waveform
characteristics, but I don't know how much or whether it is a major factor
in the tone of the instrument. It sounds like a fairly easy test to
construct, so, why don't you try it, and let us know? Best to use a mic well
above $500 for the test, though. ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

videochas www.locoworks.com wrote:

http://www.wimp.com/threetenors

What is the matter with the violins on that clip? They sound like
they are made of cigar boxes.

They're tightly spotted. When you do that closer than section level, your
choice is either to have it screechy or to roll off the top and have it
sound like a string section on a Barry Manilow record. Either alternative
is horrible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Bill Graham wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/15/2010 6:52 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is
rather puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition.
A musical instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the
number of variables accounting for its sound can not be adequately
controlled.

Apparently Bill doesn't think this is necessary, that
guitars can be designed for a purpose using engineered
materials, and make them all the same.

OTOH, the
intention behind making microphones is that all mics of a certain
model will have the same sound, and the failure to accomplish this
is due to mechanical and manufacturing limitations.

Yup. But if you COULD make guitars like you CAN (sort of)
make microphones, then Bill would be a happy boy, at least
if those engineered guitars only cost a few hundred bucks.
If they cost $10,000, however, I think he might be a little
disappointed with the state of technology.

Actually, I don't care much about the cost. I am just interested
because I inherently believe that science can solve all problems, so
I think a guitar made out of carbon fibre, or metal, or plastic, or
some other material besides wood could be made to sound the same as a
wood one. I don't believe in magic, IOW. Identify the sound you want,
and let the engineers build it.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong about the contribution that materials make
to the sound of an acoustic instrument. I'm not sure on what kind of science
you are basing your faith in, but the science I'm aware of would suggest
that the only materials that would behave like another material would have
physical properties that are indistinguishable from the originals. Wood and
plastic are not two such materials, so no engineer would be able to
accomplish what you propose, except through magic, of course! ;-)

--
Neil

[Neil Gould]

Bill Graham wrote:
Jenn wrote:

The guitars that I tend to like the most are handmade one at a time
and are, predictably, expensive. I don't go for beautiful inlays,
etc. at all. People who play as I play tend to stay away from that.
But to get the sound that is close to the model in my head requires
woods that are expensive, and tons of working and tweeking by the
builder. The cost is worth it to me because it is the only way I can
get the sound that I want. It's a very subtle thing. I have very
few, but very excellent instruments. I wish that they were less
expensive, but they are not.

I don't know how a guitar could be "tweeked" for better sound after
it has been built.

How a guitar is set up *after it has been built* can have a major impact on
both how it handles and how it sounds. Such things as string height, weight,
and tension make a big difference, because it affects how you finger the
instrument and by extension how it sounds. Even novice guitarists can feel
and hear the differences.

--
Neil

[Richard Kuschel]

On Dec 15, 2:06*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that
the application of some science to the effort can't hurt.
Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific
instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered
building of an instrument, using any modern or classical
material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of
these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they
are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem
from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the
sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical
way.

Guitars, at least acoustic guitars, are traditionally made
from wood. No two pieces of wood are alike, so it's
impossible to make two guitars that sound alike. There are
certain characteristics that you can retain over a design,
which are a function of the things you can control - the
size and position of the sound hole, the depth of the body,
the placement of the braces, the length of the strings. I
don't think that we know enough about wood yet to be able to
make a substitute that sounds like a wood guitar, at least
I've never heard one that does.

A microphone is a different story. It's possible to make a
bunch of microphones that all sound alike, but it's not
trivial because there's precision machining involved, with,
so said Stephen Paul, one of the people who spent many years
studying what makes mics sound the way they do, greater
precision than can be achieved with present NC machines. So
either you take a little variation or you throw away a lot
of mics that don't sound like your gold standard.

I suppose you could do the same with guitars, but it
wouldn't be as economical as in your dream.

Oh, I have no idea how economical it may turn out to be. I just
inherently believe that most all such things are possible when
approached from a scientific perspective. I believe that the density
and other material characteristics of the various woods could be
ascertained, and plastics substituted, and guitars built for whatever
sound you wanted turned out by picking the right materials and
construction techniques. Whether anyone would bother is another
story. Someday, perhaps, when we run out of exotic woods, such a
thing may become mandatory.

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is
rather puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition.
A musical instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the
number of variables accounting for its sound can not be adequately
controlled. OTOH, the intention behind making microphones is that all
mics of a certain model will have the same sound, and the failure to
accomplish this is due to mechanical and manufacturing limitations.
In the end, though, your idea that one can completely reproduce the
acoustic qualities of one material and complex structure with some
dissimilar material and structure falls apart rather quickly, if you
really apply some scientific thought to the subject.

Well actually, it isn't the structure of the woods that I would be
interested in, but the sound that the guitar makes, which you say is because
of the structure of the wood, but I am not so sure. I am interested in this
because the same controversy becomes apparent when a bunch of trumpet
players start talking about the different materials you can make a horn out
of, and how they affect the sound. Why would a copper bell on a trumpet
(instead of brass) *make for any difference in the sound? I don't believe it
does, but there are trumpet players who swear by it. To me, the placebo
effect jumps to the forefront in discussions like this. *I wonder how much
placebo effect makes the sound of a rosewood buitar different from that of a
mahogany one.....



It isn't placebo effect that makes a copper bell sound different than
a brass one,.It's the density of the material. this isn't conjecture,
it can be demonstrated scientifically.

It also isn't placebo effect that determines the difference between a
mahogany back guitar and a rosewood one. It has a lot to do with
density and also the porosity of the wood.

As far as scientifically designed carbon fiber and composite guitars
go, I had a lot of experience with the carbon fiber toped Ovation
Adamas guitars back in the early 80's.
One of the most amazing guitars I ever heard were three of those that
were built without pickups.

The tone was very similar, they were well balanced in sound and they
were loud.

Unfortunately, the vibration from those carbon fiber laminated to
birch tops was so great that after a few months, the tops would start
to literally rattle themselves apart.

They didn't have the same sound as a wood guitar, but they had an
excellent sound nonetheless.

Can wood be replaced with plastics and other materials?... Certainly!
Could they sound the same?... Perhaps, but part of the mystique and
appeal of hand built wood guitars is that they do sound and feel
different.

One instrument that can take advantage of carbon fiber or metals to
make it play more consistently is the bass guitar. On a wooden
necked bass with a Fender scale length, there is a consistently dead
spot on the G string between the fifth and seventh frets. Carbon fiber
and aluminum necks do not have this and are much more even in
response. So one can buy a specialty neck if bothered by that or just
put a "C" clamp on the headstock to eliminate the dead spot.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:10:42 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/15/2010 6:52 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is
rather puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition.
A musical instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the
number of variables accounting for its sound can not be adequately
controlled.

Apparently Bill doesn't think this is necessary, that
guitars can be designed for a purpose using engineered
materials, and make them all the same.

OTOH, the
intention behind making microphones is that all mics of a certain
model will have the same sound, and the failure to accomplish this
is due to mechanical and manufacturing limitations.

Yup. But if you COULD make guitars like you CAN (sort of)
make microphones, then Bill would be a happy boy, at least
if those engineered guitars only cost a few hundred bucks.
If they cost $10,000, however, I think he might be a little
disappointed with the state of technology.

Actually, I don't care much about the cost. I am just interested because I
inherently believe that science can solve all problems, so I think a guitar
made out of carbon fibre, or metal, or plastic, or some other material
besides wood could be made to sound the same as a wood one. I don't believe
in magic, IOW. Identify the sound you want, and let the engineers build it.


To date, no guitar made from an alternate material has produced the
sound of wood. They've been trying since the 50's, at least.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Scott Dorsey]

Rick Ruskin wrote:

To date, no guitar made from an alternate material has produced the
sound of wood. They've been trying since the 50's, at least.

Don't blame the engineers. What you need are vat-grown trees with
consistent internal structure.

And if you think guitars are bad due to the amount of hand work required
due to the inconsistency of the materials, you should SEE what violins
are like. At least some reverse-engineering has gone into figuring out
systematically why craftsmen shave here instead of there, in the case of
the fiddle.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/15/2010 4:19 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't know how a guitar could be "tweeked" for better
sound after it has been built.

Oh, there's lots of stuff, some as simple as finding strings
that sound good and feel right for the guitar and player.
There are adjustments for string height (which affects the
amount of pressure on the top), and the shape of the frets
make a difference, too. These are things that are
interactive with the player, so not all players would get
the same tone out of the same, or an identical guitar.

A campfire player will be happy with a guitar that sounds
pretty good and plays well, and probably will be happier
with one that costs $500 than one that costs $5,000. A
serious guitar player will want to find the one guitar
that's right. And don't tell me that the same isn't true for
great trumpet players.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Rick Ruskin]

On 15 Dec 2010 20:57:09 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Rick Ruskin wrote:

To date, no guitar made from an alternate material has produced the
sound of wood. They've been trying since the 50's, at least.

Don't blame the engineers. What you need are vat-grown trees with
consistent internal structure.

And if you think guitars are bad due to the amount of hand work required
due to the inconsistency of the materials, you should SEE what violins
are like. At least some reverse-engineering has gone into figuring out
systematically why craftsmen shave here instead of there, in the case of
the fiddle.
--scott


IMO, No amount of engineering is going to get any substitute to sound
like wood.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin

[Bill Graham]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
Speaking of singers, how about these three?

http://www.wimp.com/threetenors

much of the actual sound character comes from the chest and they have
only
the close mike on the mouth.

Are you saying that singers make sounds that don't come out of their mouths,
so a mike in front of the mouth is inadequate? If so, I find that hard to
believe....Sounds kind of like what the trumpet players call, "Projection"
to me. The only sounds I've ever heard that don't come out of the mouth are
burps, gurgles, and farts.

[Bill Graham]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that
the application of some science to the effort can't hurt.
Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific
instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered
building of an instrument, using any modern or classical
material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of
these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they
are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem
from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the
sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical
way.

Guitars, at least acoustic guitars, are traditionally made
from wood. No two pieces of wood are alike, so it's
impossible to make two guitars that sound alike. There are
certain characteristics that you can retain over a design,
which are a function of the things you can control - the
size and position of the sound hole, the depth of the body,
the placement of the braces, the length of the strings. I
don't think that we know enough about wood yet to be able to
make a substitute that sounds like a wood guitar, at least
I've never heard one that does.

A microphone is a different story. It's possible to make a
bunch of microphones that all sound alike, but it's not
trivial because there's precision machining involved, with,
so said Stephen Paul, one of the people who spent many years
studying what makes mics sound the way they do, greater
precision than can be achieved with present NC machines. So
either you take a little variation or you throw away a lot
of mics that don't sound like your gold standard.

I suppose you could do the same with guitars, but it
wouldn't be as economical as in your dream.

Oh, I have no idea how economical it may turn out to be. I just
inherently believe that most all such things are possible when
approached from a scientific perspective. I believe that the density
and other material characteristics of the various woods could be
ascertained, and plastics substituted, and guitars built for
whatever sound you wanted turned out by picking the right materials
and construction techniques. Whether anyone would bother is another
story. Someday, perhaps, when we run out of exotic woods, such a
thing may become mandatory.

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is
rather puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition.
A musical instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the
number of variables accounting for its sound can not be adequately
controlled. OTOH, the intention behind making microphones is that all
mics of a certain model will have the same sound, and the failure to
accomplish this is due to mechanical and manufacturing limitations.
In the end, though, your idea that one can completely reproduce the
acoustic qualities of one material and complex structure with some
dissimilar material and structure falls apart rather quickly, if you
really apply some scientific thought to the subject.

Well actually, it isn't the structure of the woods that I would be
interested in, but the sound that the guitar makes, which you say is
because of the structure of the wood, but I am not so sure. I am
interested in this because the same controversy becomes apparent when
a bunch of trumpet players start talking about the different
materials you can make a horn out of, and how they affect the sound.
Why would a copper bell on a trumpet (instead of brass) make for any
difference in the sound? I don't believe it does, but there are
trumpet players who swear by it. To me, the placebo effect jumps to
the forefront in discussions like this. I wonder how much placebo
effect makes the sound of a rosewood buitar different from that of a
mahogany one.....

I believe it is important to be accurate in such a discussion, and to that
end, I've discussed two aspects of the guitar; the materials, (e.g. the
woods, glue, finishing, etc.), and the structure, such as shape, bracing,
string terminations, etc. These aspects significantly affect the sound of
a
guitar, but there are other variables that I have not talked about, such
as
construction techniques, environmental conditions, and so forth that also
impact the final result. My point is that the interaction of these aspects
result in a factorial number of possible characteristic sound variations
for
an acoustic guitar model.

I am not as familiar with musical instrument horn design, but I do know
about material qualities in general. So, the impact of a copper bell vs.
brass depends in part on how the resonance of the bell might affect the
instrument's sound (given the same bell shape). The resonance, density,
and
rigidity of the bell materials will have some impact on waveform
characteristics, but I don't know how much or whether it is a major factor
in the tone of the instrument. It sounds like a fairly easy test to
construct, so, why don't you try it, and let us know? Best to use a mic
well
above $500 for the test, though. ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

Yes. For the test, I would have to go double blind, with the horn player
behind a curtain, and blindfolded, so even he wouldn't know which horn he
was playing. And a bunch of, "experts" listening on the other side of the
curtain. And, all I would be going for would be some detectable difference.
So, they would all try to identify "horn #1" from "horn #2" in a series of
pieces played by one or more trumpeters, and if they could even tell the
difference, I would admit that a difference exists. But to my knowledge, its
the air column inside the horn that is vibrating, and while the horns
material might make some subtle difference in the sound, I doubt seriously
whether the difference between brass and copper could be heard by anyone.
After all, brass is 80% or more copper anyway. And, it isn't the whole horn
that is different, but only the bell part which is about 1/4 of the length
of the horn.

[Bill Graham]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/15/2010 6:52 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is
rather puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition.
A musical instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the
number of variables accounting for its sound can not be adequately
controlled.

Apparently Bill doesn't think this is necessary, that
guitars can be designed for a purpose using engineered
materials, and make them all the same.

OTOH, the
intention behind making microphones is that all mics of a certain
model will have the same sound, and the failure to accomplish this
is due to mechanical and manufacturing limitations.

Yup. But if you COULD make guitars like you CAN (sort of)
make microphones, then Bill would be a happy boy, at least
if those engineered guitars only cost a few hundred bucks.
If they cost $10,000, however, I think he might be a little
disappointed with the state of technology.

Actually, I don't care much about the cost. I am just interested
because I inherently believe that science can solve all problems, so
I think a guitar made out of carbon fibre, or metal, or plastic, or
some other material besides wood could be made to sound the same as a
wood one. I don't believe in magic, IOW. Identify the sound you want,
and let the engineers build it.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong about the contribution that materials make
to the sound of an acoustic instrument. I'm not sure on what kind of
science
you are basing your faith in, but the science I'm aware of would suggest
that the only materials that would behave like another material would have
physical properties that are indistinguishable from the originals. Wood
and
plastic are not two such materials, so no engineer would be able to
accomplish what you propose, except through magic, of course! ;-)

--
Neil

Well, first you would intentionally make a guitar out of some "as little
like wood as possible" material, such as aluminum, and see how it affected
the sound. Then you would make one out of some very soft material, such as
rubber, and see what that would do to the sound. And then go from there.
IOW, apply a little science to the problem. Exactly how much does the
hardness/stiffness of the material affect the sound? The guitarists talk
about rosewood and mahogany. What is the difference between those two woods?
Is one harder than the other? More dense? What about spruce and cedar? Do
you think it is strange that the woods the guitar players find most
appealing are the most exotic and expensive ones? Why doesn't pine sound as
good as rosewood? Don't you really think that the placebo effect is lurking
around the corner somewhere? Come on.... Don't you? Why would a rare tree in
the middle of the Brazilian jungle somewhere produce, "the best sounding
guitar in the world?" But Connecticut Oak wood just sound really bad. My
mathematician instincts tell me that the probability of that is pretty
small.

[Bill Graham]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
Jenn wrote:

The guitars that I tend to like the most are handmade one at a time
and are, predictably, expensive. I don't go for beautiful inlays,
etc. at all. People who play as I play tend to stay away from that.
But to get the sound that is close to the model in my head requires
woods that are expensive, and tons of working and tweeking by the
builder. The cost is worth it to me because it is the only way I can
get the sound that I want. It's a very subtle thing. I have very
few, but very excellent instruments. I wish that they were less
expensive, but they are not.

I don't know how a guitar could be "tweeked" for better sound after
it has been built.

How a guitar is set up *after it has been built* can have a major impact
on
both how it handles and how it sounds. Such things as string height,
weight,
and tension make a big difference, because it affects how you finger the
instrument and by extension how it sounds. Even novice guitarists can feel
and hear the differences.

--
Neil


Yes. I always liked a tight action. But too tight an action can result in a
buzz. Which some Flamenco instruments have, by the way. And, the tighter the
action the less extra tension is put on the string by depressing it into the
fret board, so the fret spacing should reflect this. But these are all
design criteria, and once the guitar is built, it is hard to change that.
There are a variety of strings on the market, however, with different
weights and diameters. And, (I suppose) made out of different kinds of nylon
and metal windings) Do the manufacturers of expensive instruments recommend
(and deliver their instrument with) a particular type of string?

[Bill Graham]

"Richard Kuschel" wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 2:06 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/13/2010 7:49 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't dispute anything you say. All I'm suggesting is that
the application of some science to the effort can't hurt.
Can't you envision the study, with modern scientific
instruments of the sounds that eminate from the various
guitars that exist in the world today, and the engineered
building of an instrument, using any modern or classical
material available, that can reproduce any and/or all of
these sounds more cheaply or easily or both, than how they
are created now? IOW, build a better guitar by throwing away
any pre-conceived notions, and by approaching the problem
from a purely scientific respective by first identifying the
sound you want, and then producing it in the most economical
way.

Guitars, at least acoustic guitars, are traditionally made
from wood. No two pieces of wood are alike, so it's
impossible to make two guitars that sound alike. There are
certain characteristics that you can retain over a design,
which are a function of the things you can control - the
size and position of the sound hole, the depth of the body,
the placement of the braces, the length of the strings. I
don't think that we know enough about wood yet to be able to
make a substitute that sounds like a wood guitar, at least
I've never heard one that does.

A microphone is a different story. It's possible to make a
bunch of microphones that all sound alike, but it's not
trivial because there's precision machining involved, with,
so said Stephen Paul, one of the people who spent many years
studying what makes mics sound the way they do, greater
precision than can be achieved with present NC machines. So
either you take a little variation or you throw away a lot
of mics that don't sound like your gold standard.

I suppose you could do the same with guitars, but it
wouldn't be as economical as in your dream.

Oh, I have no idea how economical it may turn out to be. I just
inherently believe that most all such things are possible when
approached from a scientific perspective. I believe that the density
and other material characteristics of the various woods could be
ascertained, and plastics substituted, and guitars built for whatever
sound you wanted turned out by picking the right materials and
construction techniques. Whether anyone would bother is another
story. Someday, perhaps, when we run out of exotic woods, such a
thing may become mandatory.

The attempted comparison between manufacturing mics and guitars is
rather puzzling to me, since the intentions are quite in opposition.
A musical instrument is expected to be unique, simply because the
number of variables accounting for its sound can not be adequately
controlled. OTOH, the intention behind making microphones is that all
mics of a certain model will have the same sound, and the failure to
accomplish this is due to mechanical and manufacturing limitations.
In the end, though, your idea that one can completely reproduce the
acoustic qualities of one material and complex structure with some
dissimilar material and structure falls apart rather quickly, if you
really apply some scientific thought to the subject.

Well actually, it isn't the structure of the woods that I would be
interested in, but the sound that the guitar makes, which you say is
because
of the structure of the wood, but I am not so sure. I am interested in
this
because the same controversy becomes apparent when a bunch of trumpet
players start talking about the different materials you can make a horn
out
of, and how they affect the sound. Why would a copper bell on a trumpet
(instead of brass) make for any difference in the sound? I don't believe
it
does, but there are trumpet players who swear by it. To me, the placebo
effect jumps to the forefront in discussions like this. I wonder how much
placebo effect makes the sound of a rosewood buitar different from that of
a
mahogany one.....



It isn't placebo effect that makes a copper bell sound different than
a brass one,.It's the density of the material. this isn't conjecture,
it can be demonstrated scientifically.

It also isn't placebo effect that determines the difference between a
mahogany back guitar and a rosewood one. It has a lot to do with
density and also the porosity of the wood.

As far as scientifically designed carbon fiber and composite guitars
go, I had a lot of experience with the carbon fiber toped Ovation
Adamas guitars back in the early 80's.
One of the most amazing guitars I ever heard were three of those that
were built without pickups.

The tone was very similar, they were well balanced in sound and they
were loud.

Unfortunately, the vibration from those carbon fiber laminated to
birch tops was so great that after a few months, the tops would start
to literally rattle themselves apart.

They didn't have the same sound as a wood guitar, but they had an
excellent sound nonetheless.

Can wood be replaced with plastics and other materials?... Certainly!
Could they sound the same?... Perhaps, but part of the mystique and
appeal of hand built wood guitars is that they do sound and feel
different.

One instrument that can take advantage of carbon fiber or metals to
make it play more consistently is the bass guitar. On a wooden
necked bass with a Fender scale length, there is a consistently dead
spot on the G string between the fifth and seventh frets. Carbon fiber
and aluminum necks do not have this and are much more even in
response. So one can buy a specialty neck if bothered by that or just
put a "C" clamp on the headstock to eliminate the dead spot.

I am amazed at how good sounding a bass guitar you can buy for under $500.
(I say this with trepidation, having been lambasted for using that figure
for classical guitars and microphones.) But I know of no other instrument
that can yield such good sound per dollar as an electric bass guitar. You do
have to have a decent amp, however, and that opens up a whole new can of
worms.....

[Bill Graham]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Rick Ruskin wrote:

To date, no guitar made from an alternate material has produced the
sound of wood. They've been trying since the 50's, at least.

Don't blame the engineers. What you need are vat-grown trees with
consistent internal structure.

And if you think guitars are bad due to the amount of hand work required
due to the inconsistency of the materials, you should SEE what violins
are like. At least some reverse-engineering has gone into figuring out
systematically why craftsmen shave here instead of there, in the case of
the fiddle.
--scott

The consistent internal structure rings a bell with me. My son-in-law makes
pipes out of burl wood, and one of the problems is getting a good burl that
has no internal flaws. So I can understand a guitar (or violin) maker
looking for wood that is consistent in quality throughout.

[Bill Graham]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2010 4:19 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

I don't know how a guitar could be "tweeked" for better
sound after it has been built.

Oh, there's lots of stuff, some as simple as finding strings that sound
good and feel right for the guitar and player. There are adjustments for
string height (which affects the amount of pressure on the top), and the
shape of the frets make a difference, too. These are things that are
interactive with the player, so not all players would get the same tone
out of the same, or an identical guitar.

A campfire player will be happy with a guitar that sounds pretty good and
plays well, and probably will be happier with one that costs $500 than one
that costs $5,000. A serious guitar player will want to find the one
guitar that's right. And don't tell me that the same isn't true for great
trumpet players.

It is. Especially for modern trumpeters. But there are professionals from
the 40's through 70's, most of whom are gone by now, who played "student
instruments" their whole lives. These guys wired and taped their horns
together and wouldn't trade them for anything. - Maybe they were
superstitious....Who knows?